I couldn't get much further past this:
What is an object?
An object is a set of functions that operate upon encapsulated data elements.
It's like HN guidelines - "assume good intent".
I could write an in-depth critique of the whole post, but it's 5:30 pm and I would rather focus on finishing my work so I can go home and be with my family.
So instead of that, I'll just give you a summary of what I think about the post:
1) The post essentially compares two different approaches: a specific variant of object-oriented programming and a specific variant of functional programming.
2) There are various points in the post where the author plays fast and loose with definitions of certain concepts, in order to make them fit his narrative.
3) The Socratic dialogue format does not help make the reasoning clearer, it just makes the readers uncomfortably aware that they're being railroaded into reaching certain conclusions.
4) The conclusions reached in the post are a mixed bag of: a) useful and interesting, b) correct but incomplete, and c) correct only under very specific circumstances, rendering them potentially dangerous.